Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21124 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 128 of 2012 Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. City Centre, Sector- IV, B.S. City Bokaro, P.O.,P.S. & District-Bokaro, through Incharge Legal Cell ... O.P. No.1/Appellant Versus 1. Birendra Tiwary @ Biranchi Tiwary son of Dulu Tiwary resident of Tand Mohanpur, P.O. & P.S.-Jaridih, District-Bokaro ... … Claimant/Respondent 2. Satyendra Barnwal son of Suresh Burnwal resident of Raja Bari Road, Jharia, P.S. & P.O. Jharia District Dhanbad at present residing at P.O. ,P.S. & Town Gomia, District-Bokaro O.P. No.2/Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr Alok Lal, Advocate For Resp. No.1: Mr Ankit Vishal, Advocate --------- 22/Dated: 17.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant-Insurance Company challenges the impugned judgment and award dated 19.05.2012 made by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro (Tribunal). 3. Mr Alok Lal, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that this was a case where the claimant was travelling on a goods vehicle which was already overloaded. He submitted that there is no evidence that the driver of the goods vehicle had any licence to drive the goods vehicle. Accordingly, he submitted that this was a case of breach of the fundamental terms Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21124 p. 2 of the insurance policy and therefore, no liability could have been foisted upon the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. Without prejudice, Mr Lal submitted that at the highest, an order for pay and recovery could have been made which has also not been made in this matter despite the observations in paragraph 8 of the impugned award. 5. Mr Lal submitted that there was no proper evidence about disability suffered by the claimant. There is no discussion about medical and functional disability. Accordingly, the Tribunal was not justified in equating the two disabilities and foisting the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. 6. Mr Lal submitted that the claimant’s age at the time of the accident was 26 years 06 months and therefore, the multiplier to be applied should have been 17 and not 18 as held by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the impugned award. 7. Mr Alok Lal submitted that for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 8. Mr Ankit Vishal, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent (claimant), submitted that though the appellant-Insurance Company has alleged fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance policy, neither any oral nor documentary evidence was led on behalf of the Insurance Company. He submitted that in any event, it is well settled that based upon the contentions now raised, and if such contentions are found to be correct, a pay and recovery Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21124 p. 3 order could be made. However, there was no question of absolving the Insurance Company from its primary duty to pay the compensation. 9. Mr Ankit Vishal submitted that the Tribunal failed to make any addition towards future prospects and has awarded illusory compensation on conventional head of pain and suffering. He submitted that no compensation has been awarded towards loss of amenities, loss of income during treatment, special diet/nourishment, future medical expenses and actual medical expenses. Mr Ankit Vishal submitted that it is well settled that it is the duty of the court to award such compensation irrespective of whether the same is claimed or not. 10. Accordingly, he submitted that this appeal may be dismissed but only after enhancing the compensation awarded. 11. The rival contentions now fall for my determination. 12. The evidence in this case shows that the insured vehicle was goods vehicle proceeding to a local market with vegetables and other agricultural goods. The claimant, who was a vendor of such vegetables and other agricultural products, was in the vehicle along with his goods. There is nothing to infer that the claimant was not a bona fide traveler along with his goods. 13. The arguments that the driver of the goods vehicle possessed no licence or that this was a case of overloading of the goods vehicle are basically arguments suggesting some breach or fundamental Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21124 p. 4 breach of the terms of the insurance policy. The burden is on the Insurance Company to make good such a contention. 14. In this case, neither oral nor documentary evidence has been led on behalf of the Insurance Company. Mr Alok Lal’s arguments that it was for the driver or owner to produce the licence in the first instance, cannot be readily accepted. Even the Insurance Company could have adduced evidence that the RTO records show no licence being issued in the name of the driver of the vehicle in question. No such effort was made. In fact, neither any oral nor documentary evidence was led by the Insurance Company to establish any breach of the terms of the insurance policy. 15. Even assuming that there was any breach, the principle of ‘pay and recover’ might have been applicable. However, in the absence of any breach being established, there is no question of making any pay and recovery order in the facts of the present case. 16. So far as the issue of compensation is concerned, there is medical evidence about the claimant suffering disability to the extent of 40%. The disability certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon was accepted in evidence. There is evidence that the claimant was vegetable vendor. Accordingly, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the claimant would have to involve himself in considerable physical activity or selling the vegetables and other agricultural produce. This would also involve squatting on the ground. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21124 p. 5 17. The disability in this case relates to post operative stiffness, left hip joint. Considering this evidence, there is nothing wrong in equating the medical disability with the functional disability. In the case of case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained that what is crucial is functional disability and not just medical disability. In a given case, however, the two may align. 18. The Tribunal has forgotten to make any additions towards future prospects. In terms of the law laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, an addition to the extent of 40% would be due when computing the compensation amount. Thus, to the yearly income of Rs. 36,000/- determined by the Tribunal, an amount of Rs. 14,400/- has to be added and the claimant’s annual income could be safely taken at Rs. 50,400/-. 19. Since, in this case, the medical and the functional disabilities align with each other; the claimant’s reduced income on account of the disability can be taken at Rs. 20,160/-. The multiplier in this case will not be 18 but it would be 17 considering the claimant’s age. The compensation on account of the disability will have to be determined at Rs. 3, 64,710/-. 20. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering but no award has been made towards other conventional heads like loss of amenities, loss of income during treatment, special diet/nourishment, future medical expenses and medical expenses. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21124 p. 6 21. Though, there is no evidence on all these aspects, considering the facts that the claimant did suffer injuries resulting in disability of 40% and the diagnosis is of post operative stiffness, it is safe to conclude that the claimant underwent an operation for hip, for which he must have been hospitalised for some period. This is apart from the oral evidence led by the claimant on these aspects. Therefore, I am of the opinion that consolidated amount of Rs. 50,000/- must be awarded to the claimant under the conventional heads which the Tribunal has missed making any award. 22. The total compensation would therefore come to Rs. 3,92,720/- instead of Rs. 2,64,200/-. 23. This appeal is dismissed but after enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 2,64,200/- to Rs. 3,92,720/-.The direction for payment of interests are however maintained. 24. The appellant-Insurance Company has, up to now, only paid ad- interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. Therefore, the appellant- Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance compensation as determined by this order, by depositing the same in this Court within six weeks from today after giving due intimation to the learned counsel for the claimant. 25. Once the amount is deposited, the Registry is directed to permit the claimant to withdraw it by transferring it into his bank account. Under no circumstances should the transfer be otherwise than through regular banking channels. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21124 p. 7 26. The learned counsel for the respondent has agreed to provide for identity and bank details so that the transfer of the compensation can be effected at the earliest. 27. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms, without any order for costs. 28. IAs, if any pending in this appeal, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) July 17, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 22.07.2026